The Path Away From Extinction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2024
- Thinkers have debated how to organise the economy for generations but in 2024, it's time to set the record straight. Capitalism has to go. It will either destroy itself or be destroyed by the ecological and social shocks of the climate crisis. That doesn't mean we have to resort to broken forms of totalitarian socialism. There are economic alternatives and in this video I'll outline a few for us to try out in a 21st Century Revolution.
This is add-on episode to the Designing The Revolution podcast. You can listen to the full series, or pick out episodes revelant to you here - • Sociability In Action
Chapters:
0:00: Neoliberalism and Left Defeatism
5:00: How the Climate Crisis will Destroy Capitalism
16:00: Redefining State Socialism
26:30: Takeaways for Social Movements
For Roger's latest updates and to support his work, sign up to his email list at 👉rogerhallam.com/#/portal/signup
You'll get a free copy of his book, Common Sense for the 21st Century, and his film, The Troublemaker.
🚶No More Marches🚶
Thousands are entering civil resistance around the world.
Want to get involved? Email ring2021@protonmail.com or register for an open zoom call: juststopoil.org/open-zoom/
Follow my work ✅
Email List: rogerhallam.com/#/portal/signup
Twitter: / rogerhallamcs21
Facebook: / roger.hallam.7
Instagram: / rogerhallamcs21
Whatsapp: whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaEp...
Telegram: t.me/rogerhallam
TikTok: / roger.hallam
Reddit: / rogerhallam
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_H...)
#rogerhallam
#climatecrisis
#juststopoil
Fisher famously quoted Fredric Jameson saying that it's become easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. well, now that the end of the world - or at least the end of *this* world - is knocking at our door, we finally find ourselves forced to figure out how to end capitalism.
Almost.
You see capitalism will end itself. What we have to figure out is how to replace it, before it ends us, along with itself.
You mean that wasn't even his own remark, he stole that from somebody else? Lovely.... Who's Frederic Jameson? Either way I hate Mark Fisher. I feel like I'm pretty literate, and I could barely get through that book. I already knew that capitalism, such as it is, was pretty monolithic and impregnable, in all likelihood. I didn't need him to tell me that. The whole premise felt rather trite and performative, and the actual reading was tedious. Bordering on word-salad charlatanism, if I may be so bold to say. Unless of course I just didn't get it. But he was like a cool hipster young philosopher and social critic. And then he killed himself. Capitalism must have drove him to it....
@@user-zh1th8sz2l I didn’t read the book but I’ve watched several of his lectures on the topic and had the same feeling as you.
I have the same experience when I try to wade the slavoj zizek. Maybe we are just intellectual but not enough to grasp it. Or it’s just a totem you’re expected to like per your ideology.
@@brianadlich4406 Yeah, some of the observations he makes, and guys like that make, about society and culture and whatnot, I guess viewed through some sort of refined postmodern prism.... are just stunning to me in how vapid they are. If you can even make out what they're saying. You're sort of flustered at first, and you're not sure whether you're just stupid, or an insensitive clod or a philistine. And then you snap out of it and realize that no I'm not stupid, he's just saying, I suppose, pretty banal things. And if anything I feel like my own growing thoughts and reflections about capitalism and life on earth, which one would think every one us would all have in abundance by simply being alive and employed in our insane capitalist society, are not being improved or enhanced by wading through this guy's turgid prose. It's all very portentous.
Anyway, at least Slavoj is a buffoon, and he knows it, and the whole thing's mainly a spectacle, listening to him lisp and carry on in his overwrought accent. Though of course he's totally erudite and knows his academic philosophy and all that jazz. It seems like he makes some pertinent observations that you might recognize, throughout his ramblings. But it's largely intellectual theater, I guess you might say. He's definitely a pop star.
Where I live (USA) I do not foresee people giving up capitalism until society has completely collapsed. Even then, a large % still won't.
Yup. We shut down capitalism, or capitalism shuts us down. Likely a chaotic messy transition.
capitalism will shut down itself by lack of power and resources
We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.
Ursula K. Le Guin
The revolution will not be televised
Why do uou think they are fast developing AI...?? IT WILL BE USED AS WEAPONS AGAINST HUMANS eventually. Then it's all over 😢😮
quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/800x450/3756444-Henry-Ford-Quote-It-is-well-enough-that-people-of-the-nation-do.jpg
Divinity, hahahahaha
Thanks Roger for another great lecture. We will overcome!
Those who figure out their food security will have the best outcome. Just ask your great grandparents.
For a bit, sure. But governments or roaming people may seize this. And one of the main points is the climate instability/unpredictability which will mean erratic harvests.
Better but not best. The best outcomes are found by organizing one's community. Food security is a bit of an illusion. Humans aren't great at surviving alone or in nuclear families. It takes a village.
@@richardallan2767 The choice is become desperate willing to become a rover or someone growing food?
@@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner
no idea what the choice will be, because we don't know if the collapse will be in 2 or 20 years, where it will start, what shape will it be, and will we change to deal with it, such as will we remove the profit motive and change systems to look out for everyone, or just keep looking out for the rich. But yes, as individuals, being fluid enough to adapt, and move where you want (not necessarily where we are told to) is going to be key, i think.
@@richardallan2767 Interesting answer. Keep in mind you posed this scenario. I have had that choice thrown at me often (I think it is an excuse to not wanting dirty fingernails lol) and have devised my answer to include the one who made this statement. In other words you. What's your choice?
Per Varoufakis, much of the US economy behaves in a feudalistic manner. The issue here is that the nature of climate change makes large scale and long term projects futile. In short much of the agency at scale is becoming and will become irrelevant. This has happened to many cultures in human history. The climate changed and the culture faded. The economic order (call it capitalism but it’s destroyed the conditions that define it) is adapted to a veery narrow band of ecological conditions determined by climate regime. The only relevant economic response is to develop local self sufficiency. Change your town’s zoning laws for walkability, change the building codes to enable passive building climate, ensure where you live is near water (but don’t expect rivers to have the same personality you grew up with) and be darned sure of nearby farmland with a water supply.
Hi Roger, is there any interest in your plan for emplyee owned businesses? From coffee shops to automobile manufacturers. Co-ownerships resolve many of the ills of boss-employee (master-slave) working relationships. It stops the privatising of profits and socializing losses. It creates an equal play field for all and does it from within. It fits within your plan, have a think.
Agree. It looks exactly like Prof. Richard Wolff wrote your comment. I'm a big fan of his. Democratizing is what businesses need. Same as society.
My experience is there is no such thing as a long term co-operative or co ownership..there will always be need for one leader/director who is good at inclusive delegation .The best way forward in my experience in small buisness, is open book employment where the employees are paid similar to the directors..that is how I run my bespoke small business for 10 years and my employees stay with good conditions for everyone.Keep it small with quality.Everyone wants to feel part of and integral.
Anybody who's been in a body corporate or group deciding what to do there is always somebody who will have a different opinion than you.
It doesn't stop capitalism as that's the means of production in private hands. And if anything in your mind it would give the employees more money and if money is a license to emit energy into the system, is this wise.
Look at Suma in Elland Yorkshire. If we worked their way we could overcome most of the hurdles we face
Take a look at Riverford Employee owned, organic farming co-operative. Hundreds of farmers, pickers, packers, drivers etc. Seems to be doing alright.
Whenever I fall back into my pit of despair I listen to Roger and it gets me back to a more positive mindset. Wish I'd been aware of his existence a long time ago.
Thanks, Roger for a very down to earth run through of what a non-capitalist market economy might look like. The rise and fall of systems is somewhat inevitable as you point out but there are perhaps things that can push a system along that might help. Citizen assemblies in themselves will go a long way to maintaining such a system as long as they are effective in communicating and influencing the direction of travel. All elements of a system, however, need to evolve to survive and systems that continue to provide security in all its forms without a significant cost to others or the ecosystem will survive longer. The basis of this, to my mind, is agreeing a set of values that are the constitutional basis of our political system. Not the rather specific rights of the American constitution but values that are not likely to change over time. Such values would be the filter for all sorts of political decisions and the rights and responsibilities that flow from them would be elements that could evolve over time without their having such a fixed status that bedevils the USA. I'll be interested to hear your own thoughts in the next video.
Capitalism: The land of opportunity at others expense.
"The pursuit of inequality"
Is that what "Capitalism" means ?
The state of cause, lives of taxes.
@@henrytwigger2245 ,
No Cupcake, capitalism is the private ownership over the means of production.
We're commenting on a higher level about what that means in practice.
If you don't even know what words mean, how can you possibly hope to understand anything?
@@SlickSimulacrum The state is taxing ordinary people and small businesses very heavily indeed, especially through hidden taxes like inflation, and giving money to huge faceless corporations.
@@henrytwigger2245, The topic is capitalism Cupcake.
Pull your head out of your a**.
I've been meaning to send an email. Trying to figure out what can be done here in the States. Glad to hear there is some traction in the UK. Keep it up!
Please do - roger.hallam.uk@gmail.com
Short of eating a billionaire? BDS the Bigs.
Centralized state planning and socialism with a giant drive to end inequality, and then a shift to a Resource Based Economy.
This is the first moment in time when project Cybersyn has been really able to be done.
Amazon and Google show this.
Hello fellow zeitgeister!
@@singingway Yo! Yo!
One of the problems of capitalism is that it is able to maintain an illusion of meritocracy while actively maintaining an aristocracy. Any system that replaced our current one must deliver on a promise of meritocracy and have a good definition of meritocratic leaders.
Any system can function properly if it has good leadership, even monarchy is just if the monarchs are intelligent, incorruptible, and act in the interest of the people. Problem is it's a birth lottery and the chances of getting leadership like that is one in a billion. Democracy seemed the logical replacement for that system, let the people choose the best leaders.
Unfortunately democracy is basically taking the most charismatic people and expecting them to be experts in everything. There's also the problem of blind spots, most people are highly specialized in their area of expertise. We're all reactionaries on at least one issue, simply because we can't understand everything.
I've often thought that governments should be organized around experience and expertise, let the people who understand the issues be the ones who determine the laws and regulations.
I've got my own ideas on how to achieve a more equitable system but I'm curious to hear yours. And I'd like to hear your plans on how to stop society from regressing into fascism. You could have the perfect idea and solution but none of that matters if people would rather choose "strong" leaders wrapped in the alternative history of religion.
I definitely think some planning is necessary. I live in a farming community which was mainly sugar cane but in recent years some of the cane farms were supplanted to avocado farms, thousands of trees were planted and the first few years the crops were very successful and then more farmers transitioned to avocado crops. A few years later there was overproduction and a glut of avocados. Then macadamia nut trees became the next big thing and thousands of them were planted. First few years were very productive but then again overproduction and a glut. So it stands to reason that some planning is needed. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when there is big money to be made but then overproduction happens. Fruit ploughed back in the ground. What a waste.
I always love how Roger manages to stay positive and hopeful in spite of what we face. which is certain climate catastrophe. I think it's fair to say at this stage that this problem is too big for the human species to mitigate or solve.
It's good to hear about the system that can replace this one. I found it uplifting.
I've been digging deep for a while now .. and I'm sorry to say, this guy way way off..
I would love to have a chat with him and open his mind
He's stuck in some small box thinking. His knowledge and intellect just doesn't hit the mark.. I'm very disappointed so many follow him and sacrifice their time for JSO.
Mutual aid, dual power, prefiguration, permaculture, and de-growth (AKA de-waste). All these and more. This is the way.
@@rickknight3823Expain what the problem with his solutions are, if you would.
7 : 50 in, will need to catch up later.
A part that needs stating is the need for curtailing wealth. This was a 91% (plus 6% NI) tax rate before Thatcherism. Given the wealthy have a bigger footprint these are policies that need addressing urgently. It doesn't end growth but it provides a means of curtailing emissions and redirecting money where it is needed.
The policy changes are enormous but come with the wrong initial questions. Policy makers do not consider awkward questions such as 'What happens if we get rid of ALL cars?' That leads to questions such as where do we need and not need cars? How do we make use of the workers? How do we recycle the resources from circa 30 million cars?
Chilean sociologist Marta Harnecker was a pioneer in the field of "planning from below", in fact, it's the name of her most famous book. She studied examples of the kinds "citizen's assemblies" you mentioned all over the world.
The problem with replacing capitalism has never been finding functional alternatives, there are many ways you could organise an economy without needing capitalism.
The critical problem is outcompeting capitalism. Capitalism will fight you to the death if you try to escape it, whether you like it or not. If your model isn't more productive, if it isn't able to outcompete capitalism, you're not going to survive.
Capitalism may destroy itself, but it will destroy it's alternatives in the process.
Why set the paradigm of more productive?
I would say how can we go to degrowth and how to get everybody be happy with an equitable share around the world. This is a functional and logical alternative to capitalism.
@@antonyjh1234 because the capital owners will fight to the death before they give up what they have. It's not that we can't live happily with less, we absolutely can, and need to, but unfortunately, at least as I see things, if you can't beat them, they'll beat you.
The march of history has been towards more productive ways of organising society's resources, because whoever produces the most has the greatest ability to enforce their will upon the world.
Then chaneg Capitalism from the inside th-cam.com/channels/_FjlWc76cIhRpb2JUFuZfA.html @@acomputer121
@@acomputer121it's not just about "productivity". It's about privately profitable productivity. Production that is safe from the Commons. We have enough resources and products but capitalism plays around with allocation and distribution because the second we're all satisfied, the economy would implode so they need people to perceive themselves as needing things. And they need to perceive it as difficult to obtain to create "value". When people have security in the form of publicly operated distribution (e.g. the postal system), "productivity" slows but "satisfaction" improves. Capitalists can't figure out a way to make that sound like a bad thing.
Throughout history when change had to happen it was the bourgeois that had to be convinced, basically these days that is you and me. You live in a system where the govt needs you to need money, this is just a paradigm that you are fighting for, wage slavery because of profit over value.
20% of our energy use is electricity, add 5% for food/delivery add 5% for medical/emergency, round up 10% and we could reduce our energy going into the system by 60%, and it's not a case of I'll believe it when i see it, but rather unless you can see it then you'll never believe it.
This of course a march to a productive organisation of society's resources.
It's not a case of them or you telling us production is the goal, I would say it's been the goal to make things easier and unless we can see a way past capitalism, of value instead of mindless consumption of all the oil based products that we do then "they" have you fooled.
we the public need to realise money is debt and we should be able to have the choice what our time debt is spent on, when people realise money never runs out and taxes don't pay for anything, they are going to be very annoyed.@@acomputer121
First time I watch one of your videos... Have to watch more of them, it seems.
Hello Roger. I am wondering if you are familiar with the ideas of Inclusive Democracy and your views of it, including their analysis of the current multidimensional crisis, its strategic/tactical recommendations/attempts and it post capitalist solution namely Inclusive Democracy. Imho there is a lot of good work there and I am very compelled by their proposed solution although obviously not very impressed by their ability to reach large numbers of people, which is obviously very difficult.
Cheers and in solidarity
Hi Brent you might also like the lili project Living Well Within Limits/ Julia Steinberg, how everyone on Earth could have the basics for a good and comfortable life, on half the energy we currently use. Cheers and solidarity too!
I totally agree that capitalism's power is not inescapable, or untopple-able. It is inescapable, it's everywhere, but not invincible. And it's not even capitalism per se that's so monolithic, or its stewards in government and the private sector that are all-powerful. They're not. It's the public. It's us. We're the ones that will never act. The apathy and sloth and frivolousness of the general public is truly breathtaking. The paralysis of our little lives and the various petty little social forces we can't even begin to overcome, let alone change the world. The powers that be must be consistently amazed how easy it is for the general public to be contained. Almost no effort at all....
I feel like saying what makes capitalism so to speak, so pernicious, is how it morally destroys us. Every time you get a job, or you enjoy some privilege or secure some material comfort or advantage for yourself at the inevitable, necessary expense of everyone else, even if you worked for it, and 'earned' it.... you're poisoned by it, and your soul is poisoned by it. All the myriad, millions of times all of us have turned our back on our fellow man, in the relentless, narrow pursuit of our own personal fortunes however grandiose or piddling.... with some convenient bit of etiquette, or phony social narrative we reach for to excuse our behavior. When they needed help, and there was never anything even approaching a moral justification for depriving them of it, given how utterly dependent, how mind-bogglingly, dazzlingly, totally, utterly dependent on the efforts and work of other people for every last aspect of our own existence and survival all of us are. And it doesn't take very long living that way and you're totally finished as a moral creature. And your soul is numb from guilt. Guilt and lust. Richly deserved guilt I might add. And you didn't even realize it happened, and you're a morally broken person who's reduced to pieties and platitudes and civility, and jealously protecting whatever little sliver of the pie you've managed for yourself. Even the supposedly enlightened among us. Especially them oftentimes.
And that's what's inescapable. That's why capitalism is so impossible to even begin to topple. It's one thing to be especially well off and comfortable, and completely inured to the suffering of others and willing to live with it. But all of us, every one of us outside of an outright street person is profoundly morally and socially beholden to it. And let's get real, is there any man here among us ready to make a righteous stand, and risk upsetting his domestic bliss, shall we say, to dream the impossible dream? Not bloody likely. But it looks like old boy here's got a pretty good plan, maybe we should run with that. Devising utopian replacements for capitalism is fun and actually pretty easy. The hard part, the impossible part is getting everyone, or anyone at all really to go along with it. And not actually toppling some feckless ruling class....
Global neoliberal capitalism has accelerated and amplified the predicament, but it's not the cause. Industrial civilization, it's insatiable energy metabolism and the exponential population growth it has enabled and sustains are the conditions that have delivered us here. Regardless of current political economy, voluntarily accepting the end of industrial civilization and subsequent population collapse will simply never happen.
Population collapse WILL happen, but it’ll take a while. Most nations on Earth already have birth rates below replacement; many are less than 50%. Global population will peak in 30 years or so at 9.5-11B people, then go into inevitable and fairly rapid decline. But the decline will be slower than the industrial population explosion. Even a 50%/century decline will take 3 centuries or so to get us back down to pre-industrial population. (This is assuming that ecological disaster doesn’t cause much more rapid death.)
What might rise out of the ashes, as per Rupert Read. Thanks Roger.
Andrewism’s video about “library economy” is worth a watch.
When money is the market, you know you messed up.
You can take the capitalist out of the capitalism, but you can't take the capitalism out of the capitalist... Grow the new but beware the old.
Any sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from a centralized command and control economy. Markets, competition, private property relations between different business units does not exist inside corporations and in fact when the internal system was placed on a capitalist footing the company (Sears) nearly imploded. Neoliberalism is *not* a rational economic theory, it is simply an ask for a people to surrender their sovereignty to totalitarian rule by wealth. State socialism is not the extent of “socialism”. Coops, worker assemblies, community assemblies can all run economic efforts in ways very different than regular businesses without the centralized state capitalism of the USSR. When paired with the needed monetary system (interest and debt free money), much of the impulse to exploitation / profit fades. Democracy in gov, in the workplace and friegeld.
Lastly instead of throwing soup on paintings, change your city zoning laws to legalize (!) and promote walkable neighborhoods. They save time, lives, money and energy *and* resolve the financial insolvency car-centric design brings. It also happens to rewrite the economic order.
20:27 "a load of bureaucracy" in the Healthcare Movie (free online) Canadian doctors say that single payer healthcare saves them both expense and time, as there is no middle man and only one piece of paper to fill out. Much LESS bureaucracy than private insurers contracting services out to each other. They love it.
Great Thumbnai! keep them coming and that + good opening seconds these videos could gain some momentum!
Thanks! Will do!
Capitalism is money. I'm more worried about the garlic now sprouting two months early here in this climate zone.
Yes, Entropy!
I shall try to find and read that.
Gee, who'd have thought a revolution would have to be this well organised...?! The reality is that the system will have to break before it can be rebuilt, and humans are very good at just trying to exactly rebuild, even in the face of obvious difficulty and sustainability...
Mark Fisher _was_ a radical guy.
We've never gone back to the 1970s. I don't know what that would look like. Chaos probably.
11:27 it was mainly airplanes (and tanks too i guess)
I agreee❤❤❤
Are we willing to give up the right to private ownership of property? It’s necessary, isn’t it?
Power Corrupts !
Your theory certainly makes more sense than what's currently in place - the 'Growth for Growth's sake' scenario. But reign about such a system will bring turmoil and violence in its wake, as revolutions inevitably do. There is another route in to get where you want to go - 'Neo-ECO-liberalism' which is all about reprogramming the creative capitalist process from the inside, as it works by factoring sustainability into money itself th-cam.com/channels/_FjlWc76cIhRpb2JUFuZfA.html
A lot of the current decline is caused by stupid shit that governments have done. Markets don’t go to war, governments and dictators do.
Markets dont want war ?
Ever heard about the military industrial complex and stuf ?
@@rollling7523 who pays Lockheed Martin to make weapons?
@@tommoody728Governments pay Lockheed M.
Lockheed M. and Raytheon and friends are very active in pushing media and govt. Lobbyists.
Like Pfizer and friends spend billions on govt and media to push shots,
The "carbon pulse" is going to come to an end.
I love you, Roger ❤️
22:17 let me suggest a better word -- "supercedes capitalism" or "overrides capitalism" -- anything other than that ... Nauseating word
Roger, are you calling for the end of civilization or the beginning. Me thinks the latter 😮
You've skipped over "Capitalism" rather quickly. Let's go back. What exactly do you mean by "Capitalism" ?
12:30 when you say the needs of the state to maintain essential services in a crisis becomes more important than "capitalism" do you really mean more important than "a free market"? More important than an uncontrolled economy? Do those all mean the same thing... I'm not challenging I'm just trying to understand, we are using the term capitalism as shorthanded
If you search Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for "read, write" you will find multiple instances, all of which are followed by "and account". Smith used the word 'education' Eighty Times.
In 1776 50% of Brits were illiterate but the United States could have made accounting/finance mandatory in high schools since Sputnik. When did you hear the worshippers of Capitalism suggesting any such thing?
Karl Marx used the word 'depreciation' 35 times in the first two volumes of his major work. He wrote about the depreciation of machinery and money. When was the last time you heard a Marxist complain about the depreciation of durable consumer goods due to planned obsolescence?
Planned Obsolescence did not exist when Smith and Marx wrote about economics. It seems like the Marxists cannot adjust their thinking to what technology makes possible in economics.
Our schools produce brainwashed workers and television produces brainwashed consumers. The Brave New World will be uninhabitable in a few more decades. Enjoy virtual reality while you can.
Daemon & Freedom by Daniel Suarez
Are we extinct yet?
Who pays the price for the destruction of capitalism ,eh , bet it’s not old men bad shirts .
This is just a ramble through Roger's poor understanding of what capitalism is. His "state control of the economy" which the ignorant call "communism/socialism" is still capitalism!. If there is a state, wages, capital, buying and selling, then it is still capitalism and it will be driven by its immutable dynamic of capital accumulation.
This may come as a shock to folk, but it's a fact that Marx and Engels envisaged a new social system that has no state, no money, no wages, no classes, no property.
Yea , state control of toothpaste is the way to equality, happiness and personal freedom , glad I had the patience to sit through the first 15 mins of this nonsense
You come across as old and out of date. We are going extinct if this shit is the best we got to move young people!
What are you doing?
We are in no danger of extinction. None. We're the most able, versatile, effective apex predator the world has ever metastised. We have always cannibalised each other; the difference now is, that lucky sector of humanity that considered themselves immune to predation is now discovering that they are in fact prey. And they don't like it. And are biting, fighting, and scrambling like rats in a bucket to dodge the axe.
Anarco Primitivism and John Zerzan.